IFP Energies nouvelles

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2020

2020000214 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/214,886 07/20/2016 Florent GUILLOU PET-3094 1114
23599 7590 12/24/2020
MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD.
SUITE 1400
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
EXAMINER
STEIN, MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@mwzb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLORENT GUILLOU, ARNAUD BAUDOT,
CHARLES-PHILIPPE LIENEMANN, ANTOINE HUGON,
KARIN BARTHELET, and FABIEN PORCHERON
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–22.3
We AFFIRM.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed July 20, 2016, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated Nov. 5,
2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer dated Aug. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Oct.
7, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IFP
Energies Nouvelles. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a method for eliminating mercury in a heavy
hydrocarbon-containing feedstock. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A process for eliminating mercury contained in a heavy
hydrocarbon-containing feedstock downstream of a main
fractionation unit (3000), which comprises:
a) transforming the non-elemental mercury contained in
the compounds of said feedstock to elemental mercury by
heating the feedstock in a conversion unit (200) and
transporting the heated feedstock from the conversion unit
(200) to the main fractionation unit (3000), which main
fractionation unit (3000) is a distillation column at atmospheric
pressure, wherein the heating is at a target temperature of
150°C or more during a fixed residence time and adapted to
said target temperature so that at least 90% by weight of non-
elemental mercury contained in the compounds of said
feedstock is converted to elemental mercury, said transforming
being carried out in the absence of hydrogen and in the absence
of a catalyst, provided that:
- when the target temperature of said feedstock is between
150°C and 175°C, the residence time of said feedstock in the
conversion unit (200) is between 150 and 2700 minutes;
- when the target temperature of said feedstock is greater than
175°C and less than or equal to 250°C, the residence time of
said feedstock in the conversion unit (200) is between 100 and
900 minutes;
- when the target temperature of said feedstock is greater than
250°C and less than or equal to 400°C, the residence time of
said feedstock in the conversion unit (200) is comprised
between 5 and 70 minutes; and
- when the target temperature of said feedstock is greater than
400°C, the residence time of said feedstock in the conversion
unit (200) is between 1 and 10 minutes;
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

3

b) fractionating the hydrocarbon-containing feedstock
transported from a) in a main fractionation unit (3000) in order
to produce a top effluent (400) comprising elemental mercury,
wherein the main fractionating unit (3000) in addition to the top
effluent (400) produces at least two further fuel cuts; and
c) bringing the top effluent (400) obtained in stage b) into
contact with a mercury capture material contained in a unit for
the capture of mercury (5000), wherein said mercury capture
material is the only single capture material and said unit for the
capture of mercury (5000) is the only single capture unit, and
wherein the elimination of the mercury contained in the heavy
hydrocarbon-containing feedstock occurs downstream of the
main fractionation unit (3000), in order to obtain an effluent
that is at least partially de-mercurized (420),
and wherein stages a) and b) are carried out separately,
and wherein the main fractionating unit (3000) in addition to
the top effluent (400) produces at least two further fuel cuts that
are selected from fuel gases (C1 to C2), propane (C3), butane
(C4), light gasoline (C5 to C6), heavy gasoline (C7 to C10),
kerosene (C10 to C13), gas-oil (C13 to C20/25) and atmospheric
residue (C20/C25+).
Appeal Br. 44–45 (Claims App.).4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Brown US 4,885,080 Dec. 5, 1989
Tan US 5,510,565 Apr. 23, 1996
Lord US 2015/0108040 A1 Apr. 23, 2015

4 Unless otherwise specified, all other quotations from the appealed claims
are from the Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 44–49.
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

4

REJECTIONS5
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, and 14–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lord, as evidenced by Brown.
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Lord, as evidenced by Brown, in view of Tan.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–226 are provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 4,
and 10–23 of copending Application No. 15/214,8827.

5 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) was withdrawn in the Advisory
Action dated February 10, 2019. See Ans. 10. The Examiner also withdraws
the final rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and replaces them with the below-
listed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id. The Appellant observes that
“[t]he apparent difference from the previous rejections appears to be that the
Examiner is making a few differently phrased allegations and/or providing
new or modified rationales for the same conclusions as before. However,
there does not appear to be much difference in substantive approach.” Reply
Br. 1. Accordingly, in addition to the arguments in the Reply Brief, we
consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief to the extent applicable to the
new Section 103 rejections.
6 The Examiner identifies claim 13 as subject to this ground of rejection. See
Ans. 10. However, claim 13 was cancelled in an amendment filed August
31, 2018. See Final Act. Summary (indicating that claims 1, 2, 4–12 and 14–
22 are pending).
7 The Appellant identifies the present appeal as related to the appeal in
copending application 15/214,882 (Appeal 2020-000316). Appeal Br. 1. The
Application Data Sheets in the present and copending applications, both
filed on July 20, 2016, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.76, list the same inventors
and Applicant.

Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

5

OPINION
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, and 14–22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lord, as evidenced by Brown. Ans. 4–8.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 over the same references in view of Tan. Id.
at 8. As to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–22, the Appellant
argues patentability of the claims as a group (Appeal Br. 6–26), as well as
the separate patentability of each of claims 4–7, 14, and 20 (id. at 26–35;
Reply Br. 1–8. The remaining claims subject to the above-listed, first ground
of rejection—claims 2, 9–12, 15–19, 21, and 22—will stand or fall with the
claim from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “[a] process for eliminating mercury contained in a
heavy hydrocarbon-containing feedstock downstream of a main fractionation
unit (3000)” comprising four stages. In a first stage (stage (a)), non-
elemental mercury contained in compounds of a heavy hydrocarbon-
containing feedstock is transformed to elemental mercury by heating the
feedstock in a conversion unit and transporting the heated feedstock to a
main fractionation unit. In a second stage (stage (b)), the feedstock is
separated in the main fractionation unit to produce a top effluent and at least
two further fuel cuts. Claim 1 explicitly recites that stage (a) and stage (b)
are carried out separately, and lists specific fuel cuts produced in the second
stage. In claim 1’s final stage (stage (c)), the top effluent from stage (b) is
contacted with a mercury capture material downstream of the main
fractionation unit to obtain an at least partially de-mercurized effluent.
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

6

The Examiner finds that Lord discloses the claim 1 process except
that Lord does not explicitly disclose (1) the residence time of the feedstock
in the conversion unit during the transforming stage, (2) separately
conducting the transforming and fractionating stages, and (3) producing at
least two further fuel cuts during the fractionating stage, selected from fuel
gases, propane, butane, light gasoline, heavy gasoline, kerosene, gas oil, and
atmospheric residue. Ans. 5. Below, we discuss the Examiner’s and the
Appellant’s respective positions regarding each of these limitations, as well
as the Appellant’s argument that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest a capturing unit downstream from the fractionation unit. See Appeal
Br. 20.
As to the residence time of the feedstock in the conversion unit during
the transforming step (stage (a)), the Examiner finds that Lord discloses
transforming at least 90% by weight of non-elemental mercury in heavy
hydrocarbon-containing feedstock at temperatures of 100–350°C, and that
the extent of conversion can be controlled by adjusting the temperature or
holding time of the oil at a specified temperature. Ans. 5, 11–12 (citing Lord
¶¶ 17, 18, 78). The Examiner further finds that Lord teaches that “the rate at
which mercury is thermally reduced to elemental mercury is strongly
influenced by the composition of the crude.” Id. at 5, 12 (citing Lord ¶ 79).
Referencing Lord Figure 2, the Examiner finds that Lord discloses the same
trends as claimed for achieving a specified mercury conversion: at lower
temperatures, longer residence times are required, and at higher
temperatures, shorter residence times result in the same conversion. Id. at 12.
The Examiner further finds that Lord describes an embodiment in which the
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

7

holding temperatures and times (“between 200° C. and 250° C. for between
60 and 600 seconds [(1 to 10 minutes)]” (Lord ¶ 25)) overlap with the
claimed ranges of “greater than 250°C and less than or equal to 400°C” and
“between 5 and 70 minutes” (claim 1). Ans. 12. Based on these findings, the
Examiner determines that adjusting the conversion time and temperature of
the heavy hydrocarbon-containing feedstock to values within the recited
ranges would have been a matter of routine optimization. See id. at 5.
The Appellant argues that although Lord teaches mercury conversion
temperatures as high as 350°C, “the data instead of proceeding to higher
amounts, suggests that for reduced residence times significantly lower
temperature levels are adequate.” Appeal Br. 19 (citing Lord Fig. 2). The
Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lord teaches conversion
times and temperatures that overlap the claimed ranges, noting that the
claimed residence times are between 100 and 900 minutes at a temperature
of 250°C. Id. at 23–24; see also Reply Br. 5–6. The Appellant’s arguments
are not persuasive of reversible error.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art and
claimed ranges overlap, as well as in those cases where the claimed range
and the prior art range, though not overlapping, are sufficiently close that
one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
See, e.g., In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the
fact that the Appellant’s claimed ranges overlap Lord’s conversion times and
are adjacent to the temperatures in Lord’s embodiment is sufficient to
support a prima facie case of obviousness, thereby shifting the burden to the
Appellant to show that the claimed ranges are critical. See In re Geisler, 116
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

8

F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although claim 1 recites a 100 to 900
minute conversion time for a target feedstock temperature “equal to 250°C,”
the Appellant has not identified, nor do we find, any evidence of criticality
in the recited ranges. Rather, the Specification describes the claim 1 ranges
as advantageous (Spec. 15:26 – 16:9) and describes a 15 to 150 minute
conversion time for feedstock temperatures of “greater than 225°C and less
than or equal to 250°C” (id. at 16:21–23 (emphasis added)) as “[e]ven more
preferabl[e] (id. at 16:11).” At most, the Specification supports a finding that
the claimed ranges provide superior results, but not unexpected results. See
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[B]y
definition, any superior property must be unexpected to be considered as
evidence of non-obviousness.”).
The Appellant contends that the ordinary artisan would not have
arrived at the claimed conversion temperature and time ranges because
although the trend shown in Lord Figure 2 “is that higher temperatures lead
to faster conversion, the relationship among the amount of residence time
and temperature and conversion percentage are not comparable to the claim
recited amounts.” Reply Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive.
As acknowledged by the Appellant, Lord “[p]aragraph 79 does
indicate that the rate at which mercury is reduced is influenced by the
composition of the crude.” Reply Br. 7; see also Lord ¶ 85 (“The kinetics,
fluid flow and heat transfer of a process are most important when upscaling
for large-scale designs. To retain the same reaction rate, the other variables
in the process design must be decreased or increased as necessary. . . .
However, a balance must be struck to prevent thermal degradation of other
Appeal 2020-000214
Application 15/214,886

9

components in the crude oil or destruction of processing equipment.”). Lord
explicitly describes Figure 2 as “representing the kinetic behavior predicted
using the Arrhenius parameters of the . . . equations for the specific crude
oil that was used in the experiments.” Lord ¶ 84. Lord discloses that
“[m]ercury concentrations in crude oil have been reported from as low as